Pussy Pass: Making it Literal

Feminists are apt to make contemptuous remarks about the male organ and how important it is to men. Not that there isn’t some truth in what they say. Even straight women who like men will acknowledge with amusement that “men think with their ding-dongs”.

Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own vagina; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s urethra.

As a lesbian, I am obviously strongly in favor of vaginas. But I am not in the habit of sitting around talking about them, and after this post, I don’t expect to do so again. The whole idea is embarrassing and squicky. But feminists are trying to change this natural female modesty.

I have never seen “The Vagina Monologues” because it sounds tedious and appalling, but apparently it’s a bunch of women talking about women’s private parts. Made me long for the exchange in Florence King’s When Sisterhood Was In Flower: the radical feminist character declared, “The vagina is a hated Other,” (kind of weird considering how much time the average man expends on trying to get into one), and an older woman responds, “I don’t think we should discuss our private parts at the table.”

When I was a teenager, I read a couple of collections of essays by Alice Walker. In one of them, she writes about an exhibit she attended of female artists. All of the artists were white. With one exception, all of the pictures displayed were of vaginas, in some cases poetically euphemized as flowers or butterflies. The one exception was the only depiction of a nonwhite: three depictions of a black woman’s face, one laughing, one weeping, and one screaming.

My own reaction was that this was the only work that depicted a woman as a human being and not as a body part. Hers was that this was proof that white feminists are secretly racist and don’t see black women as women, because white feminists don’t sit around thinking about black women’s vaginas.

About a decade ago, I was reading… I think it was a local gay paper, but I can’t be sure. Some women had gotten together for some stupid women’s discussion group or something. The facilitator began, “As women, how do we feel about our vaginas?” The article whined that several women immediately got up and left, but the remaining ones happily spent the next couple of hours discussing their genitals.

Can you imagine a dozen men getting together and beginning a discussion with the question, “As men, how do we feel about our penises?”

And of course, if they felt good about them, as all non-transsexual men do, the feminist denunciation of this lack of self-loathing is all too predictable.

I bring all this up because the Editrix shared with me a link to a really astonishing example of this particular innovation of feminist madness.

But, Mithu M. Sanyal remonstrates, in Western cultural history there is no mention of the object of this male gaze. The female genitals, the vulva, she says, is a symbolic and semantic void, a feared “gate to Hell” behind which lies the “vagina dentata”. To expose “the invisible sex”, to seize it from the male power of definition and reinstate it in our minds is the aim of Sanyal’s small cultural history of the vulva, and it belongs in a line of “provocative feminism” (Sanyal) that turns the media into babbling wetlands.

Actual caption: “It’s difficult to love a woman whose vagina is a gateway to the world of the dead.”

I’m a misogynist, but I hardly fear the vagina as a “gate to Hell”. Quite the opposite, as a matter of fact.

I’m not going to bother disputing the usual crap about the male gaze and the male power of definition. That stuff is too idiotic to bother arguing with.

I am kind of intrigued at the phrase “turns the media into babbling wetlands”. “Wetlands” is an environmentalist euphemism for “swamp”. Brooks babble; swamps do not babble. So, he’s saying that journalists are flustered by this cultural history of the vulva and respond by saying silly things? And that the media is a swamp? To make allowances, I think the article was translated from German, so perhaps that explains how this odd phrase came about. But I can’t help but wonder if there was something Freudian going on too; “babbling wetlands” is actually a pretty good description of feminists.

Amazingly this ritual exhibitionism, the sheela-na-gig, even made it onto a number of Romanesque churches – an indicator that it took several centuries to turn the once honoured fertility and lustiness of the female crotch into a place of shame.

There we have the usual baloney about how everybody had great sex and practiced “free love” until the mean old Christians came along and made everybody stop. The fact is, every culture has valued premarital virginity. Women who were born into some small subculture that didn’t practice it were always low status and lived more or less as prostitutes.

But what’s really deranged is that these people don’t at all understand the huge advance in women’s status and rights that Christianity represents. Yes, previous cultures wanted women to be passionate and fertile once they were married. In the movie Caligula, there’s a wedding scene where the altar has a sculpture of a penis and of a vulva, apparently in case the bride or groom needed a quick lesson.

So yeah, these cultures put images of vaginas around, because that’s how they saw women. Women, to them, were vaginas on legs, into which men put their penises and out of which men received their heirs.

Christianity refused to depict women this way. It saw them as human beings with souls, and men were supposed to care about that more than about sexual gratification or fertility.

Nowadays, feminists have relegated Christianity to the dustbin of history, or tried to, and the result is that there is now a whole lifestyle revolving around getting women to allow themselves to be used as sex objects (the pickup artist subculture), and in the MRA blogosphere, men constantly mourn that they cannot obtain children without entangling themselves with a female. Feminism, in short, has divested women of the soul that Christianity culturally endowed them with and returned them to being seen, in the male gaze, as vaginas and wombs.

As an aside: when people discuss the possibility of making men pregnant, they always talk about it in the context of gay men. I think that when this advance happens, they will be surprised at how many straight MGTOWs will have babies themselves so that they will not have to worry about their wives taking the children away.

But the strength of this cultural history lies less in the originality of its theses than in its knowledgeable and etymologically-informed synopses, plus the wealth of illustrations.

So, this book has lots of pictures of vaginas? This is the most brilliant feminist move since bra-burning.

The second part of the book is dedicated to the return of vulva exposure to darkened western stages. She traces the reclaiming of the female genitals, from the dance of the seven veils to modern strippers and onto provocative artistic nudity. The subversive act being that women are regaining control over how their sex is viewed.

The way women can control how their sex is viewed is by their behavior. If they behave modestly and responsibly, men will see them as human beings to be cherished. If they publicly exhibit their vaginas, men will see them as sex objects to be used. If they spew feminist nonsense like this, men will see them as harridans who should be avoided whenever possible and who should never be treated as rational human beings.

Sure enough. “Those creations still hand made exclusively by Dorrie herself now range in price between US$400 & $600.” Women do tend to overvalue their own vaginas – this is an evolutionarily useful tendency – but I have never heard of so egregious an example.

Oh, also, “We also now offer a range of more affordable vulva puppets made under the artist’s direction by a fair trade women’s cooperative in Peru.” Well, there’s just something for every type of pinko there, isn’t there?

When I want to pat and stroke a vulva, I will acquire access to a real one, thank you. But I won’t buy it online.

In closing, the works I’ve mentioned above prove that feminists have no clue what they want. When they’re not complaining that men see them as sex objects, they’re complaining that they don’t get equated with their vaginas enough.

Also, for some comic relief, go to this post ridiculing a whacked-out comic book. It includes the priceless phrase, “You have to get out of here! Your vagina is haunted!”

Well put. What's with women that so many of them need to be told what to think/do etc. They are the ultimate crowd pleasers. If one woman wants to strip and show hers off, more power, but that shouldn't mean other women are told they have to in order to be empowered modern women. What suckers would fall for that tripe? Men value their unit as a tool to achieving their primary drive of life. It's a means to an end and since that drive defines us, it is central to our value system and thoughts. Not because we want to model it in a puppet, not because it's a pet, or we actually think with it. A hammer is valuable to a contractor or someone who wants to hang a picture. A penis is valuable to someone who wants to get laid. A pussy is valuable to men and an object of desire because it is the end to which the drive pushes us. We love to gaze at them and admire them in much the same way women do a diamond ring, because it represents her primary drive of enslaving a hapless male to fulfill all of her whims forevermore. If it didn't come with the man and imply his subjugation, it wouldn't be nearly so fascinating. That's why women don't want a ruby engagement ring, but a diamond one, even though by fundamental rarity rubies are more valuable. It is merely the monopoly on diamonds that makes them actually cost more, it's artificial rarity and the resale value shows it. Men could give a shit about a pussy puppet, because you can't sire children with it, and furthermore no man in his right mind would pay $400 for a real one, let alone a simulacrum. I think your statement that women always overvalue their pussy is one of the most salient things I've ever heard a woman say. They all think theirs is the only one in the world, and those of all the other 3 billion women are mere pale imitations of the midas snatch. Puh-leez. They are virtually interchangeable. As men like to say, it's all pink on the inside. So long as it's healthy and attached to an attractive woman we could care less which one we inhabit for the night.

Well put. What's with women that so many of them need to be told what to think/do etc. They are the ultimate crowd pleasers. If one woman wants to strip and show hers off, more power, but that shouldn't mean other women are told they have to in order to be empowered modern women. What suckers would fall for that tripe? Men value their unit as a tool to achieving their primary drive of life. It's a means to an end and since that drive defines us, it is central to our value system and thoughts. Not because we want to model it in a puppet, not because it's a pet, or we actually think with it. A hammer is valuable to a contractor or someone who wants to hang a picture. A penis is valuable to someone who wants to get laid. A pussy is valuable to men and an object of desire because it is the end to which the drive pushes us. We love to gaze at them and admire them in much the same way women do a diamond ring, because it represents her primary drive of enslaving a hapless male to fulfill all of her whims forevermore. If it didn't come with the man and imply his subjugation, it wouldn't be nearly so fascinating. That's why women don't want a ruby engagement ring, but a diamond one, even though by fundamental rarity rubies are more valuable. It is merely the monopoly on diamonds that makes them actually cost more, it's artificial rarity and the resale value shows it. Men could give a shit about a pussy puppet, because you can't sire children with it, and furthermore no man in his right mind would pay $400 for a real one, let alone a simulacrum. I think your statement that women always overvalue their pussy is one of the most salient things I've ever heard a woman say. They all think theirs is the only one in the world, and those of all the other 3 billion women are mere pale imitations of the midas snatch. Puh-leez. They are virtually interchangeable. As men like to say, it's all pink on the inside. So long as it's healthy and attached to an attractive woman we could care less which one we inhabit for the night.

The term "golden pussy syndrome" even has an entry in the Urban Dictionary.

I am reading this blog with growing fascination. First, because I have come to understand some time ago that feminism is wreaking more havoc with our society and Western culture than all other "isms" together, and second because I perceive differences at my end that are not purely quantitative but qualitative as well. In plain English: we aren't just less stricken by feminism, ours has a different face. (Not that it is any less destructive!) After our host has deflated my "American frontier and pioneer" theory, I have to think of something else, but that is not the topic now. What is the same, though, is that female craving for attention, the general shallowness and the wish to rule without the slightest talent for it.

It becomes so obvious in this case, doesn't it? While males certainly have a point in comparing measurements of their male organ and its appendages (for want of a better word), what is there to say about the female vulva save that it's hopefully healthy and all pink inside? Any measurements are futile when it's about a "negative", an "inversion". What sense would "My hole is bigger that yours" make? Maybe Old Doctor Freud's penis envy had a point, after all.

The term "golden pussy syndrome" even has an entry in the Urban Dictionary.

I am reading this blog with growing fascination. First, because I have come to understand some time ago that feminism is wreaking more havoc with our society and Western culture than all other "isms" together, and second because I perceive differences at my end that are not purely quantitative but qualitative as well. In plain English: we aren't just less stricken by feminism, ours has a different face. (Not that it is any less destructive!) After our host has deflated my "American frontier and pioneer" theory, I have to think of something else, but that is not the topic now. What is the same, though, is that female craving for attention, the general shallowness and the wish to rule without the slightest talent for it.

It becomes so obvious in this case, doesn't it? While males certainly have a point in comparing measurements of their male organ and its appendages (for want of a better word), what is there to say about the female vulva save that it's hopefully healthy and all pink inside? Any measurements are futile when it's about a "negative", an "inversion". What sense would "My hole is bigger that yours" make? Maybe Old Doctor Freud's penis envy had a point, after all.

I look forward to hearing more about how feminism is different in Europe. I have seen plenty of ominous articles showing that the problem is just as bad over there, even if it is different.

Also, I'm flattered that you're enjoying my blog. You might also like to read the works of Daniel Amneus and F. Roger Devlin, both of whom are linked in my sidebars. They really get down to the foundations of these ideas.

I look forward to hearing more about how feminism is different in Europe. I have seen plenty of ominous articles showing that the problem is just as bad over there, even if it is different.

Also, I'm flattered that you're enjoying my blog. You might also like to read the works of Daniel Amneus and F. Roger Devlin, both of whom are linked in my sidebars. They really get down to the foundations of these ideas.

MCW, I certainly will read them and generally more about it because I want to get to the roots of the problem.

Yes, the problem here is as bad here, or will be soon. However, it is different because the collective psyche is different. I am living for almost three years now in the post-Communist East of Germany and here I am observing yet again different phenomena about marriage and family. I think I will blog a longer entry about it myself soon.

MCW, I certainly will read them and generally more about it because I want to get to the roots of the problem.

Yes, the problem here is as bad here, or will be soon. However, it is different because the collective psyche is different. I am living for almost three years now in the post-Communist East of Germany and here I am observing yet again different phenomena about marriage and family. I think I will blog a longer entry about it myself soon.

Do you know what? I downloaded a sizeable amount of F. Roger Devlin's oevre already and even read enough of it to be totally convinced by his arguments. I just didn't remember his name. Sometimes I think I don't function all that well anymore. My intellectual reasoning abilities are still intact, but I forget really important things lately, not just names.

Do you know what? I downloaded a sizeable amount of F. Roger Devlin's oevre already and even read enough of it to be totally convinced by his arguments. I just didn't remember his name. Sometimes I think I don't function all that well anymore. My intellectual reasoning abilities are still intact, but I forget really important things lately, not just names.